is needed, Kalshi asks that it be de minimis. ( Id. ) Defendants’ opposition brief does not reference security. Though I have discretion in setting the amount of bond, I do not find that my discretion extends to not setting one at all in this instance. See Marine Elec. Sys., Inc. , 644 F. Supp. 3d at 96; see also Tilden Recreational Vehicles, Inc. v. Belair , 786 F. App’x 335, 343 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting that district courts must set bond even when the parties do not raise the issue and that waiver of the bond requirement applies to narrow circumstances in which compliance with the preliminary injunction poses no risk of monetary loss for the opponent). The court in Hendrick determined that a de minimis security was warranted and set the bond at $10,000 with the parties having an opportunity to advocate for the sum to be increased or decreased. 2025 WL 1073495, at *8. I find that that amount is in insufficient under the instant circumstances and instead determine that a bond of $100,000 is appropriate. This sum is intended to mirror that of the maximum fine of a violation under the Sports Wagering Act. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12A – 11(c). If either party seeks an adjustment to this sum, they may do so by filing a letter of no more than three double-spaced pages on the docket. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
/s/ Edward S. Kiel E DWARD S. K IEL U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT J UDGE
Dated: April 28, 2025
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs